The order applies to some of institutions that are members of the Council for Opportunity in Education.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Dima Berlin/iStock/Getty Images | ferrantraite/E+/Getty Images
Some canceled TRIO programs will get a second look after a federal judge ordered the Education Department Friday to reconsider grants that were either denied or discontinued last year.
More than 100 grants were canceled because the department said they either didn’t follow nondiscrimination requirements or align with the Trump administration’s anti-DEI agenda. The cancellations represented about 3 percent of all TRIO programs, which served more than over 43,600 students. Colleges that house these programs have also had to lay off staff members and cut services to the underrepresented students that TRIO is designed to serve.
The Council for Opportunity in Education, which advocates for TRIO programs and filed two lawsuits to block the cuts, argued in part that the department penalized the TRIO programs for complying with Biden-era requirements that were in place when the applications were submitted. The lawsuits concern a batch of grants for the Student Support Services program, which is part of TRIO, that were up for renewal in 2025 and subsequently denied, as well as dozens of grants that were discontinued.
“The department’s retroactive application of new policies, and its actions penalizing applicants for responding to its prompts and making statutorily-required statements about equity are deeply unfair and lie at the heart of this case,” lawyers representing COE wrote.
Judge Tanya S. Chutkan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia largely agreed with COE and found that the organization was likely to prevail on the merits of its case. In a 39-page opinion, Chutkan, an Obama appointee, ruled that the department didn’t sufficiently explain its decisions or follow statutory and regulatory requirements in canceling the grants.
“Though repeatedly asked, the department has refused to offer any rational explanation for why it denied these members’ SSS grant applications beyond ‘the Department’s review for potential conflicts with applicable nondiscrimination requirements,’” Chutkan wrote. “When pressed at the hearing on what policies and priorities the department relied on, counsel simply stated they were not prepared to discuss the merits of the cases.”
Chutkan later added that “in the end, the court is left to wonder what considerations, if any, led to the change in continuation criteria because the Department has yet to explain itself.” Even if the department did explain its position more clearly, Chutkan said, the department cannot reject grants based on its 2025 priorities, which were finalized after it rejected the TRIO applications.
The preliminary injunction from Chutkan only applies to the member institutions that COE identified in its lawsuit—a narrower scope of relief than the plaintiffs requested. Some TRIO programs at eight institutions are covered by the court order.
“Today’s ruling is an important victory for fairness, transparency, and the rule of law—and, most importantly, for the students TRIO serves,” COE president Kimberly Jones said in a statement. “While this is not the end of the case, it is a powerful and encouraging first step that protects programs from harm and reinforces the integrity of the TRIO grant process.”
Like other cases against the Trump administration concerning canceled grants, Chutkan had to grapple with the question of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has said that the Court of Federal Claims is likely the best place to resolve grant disputes, though that court typically deals with contracts and doesn’t have the authority to restore the terminated funds.
COE has argued that TRIO grants weren’t contracts at all and therefore not subject to the Tucker Act, which grants the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over any express or implied contract with the United States. The Education Department argued otherwise.
Chutkan ultimately concluded that she did have jurisdiction because the Supreme Court’s preliminary rulings haven’t yet suggested “that the Tucker Act precludes federal district court jurisdiction over all claims relating to grant terminations.” So, she added, it’s “open question” whether the district courts can hear any claims related to grant decisions.
